Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

[JessaWoo]

These are tweets from Matt Walsh on X about Bishop Marian Budde and her sermon earlier today in Washington, attacking her womanhood and ability in a sexist and ageist tirade. It seems the clarion call has gone out to the rest of the Trump X minions, as they are all tweeting the same sentiments - including Kellie-Jay Keen and Donald Trump Jnr. Rep. Mike Collins całłed for her deportation, although she is American. Do you still support Trump after this?

“A liberal woman over the age of 50 with a lesbian haircut is guaranteed to support the most evil ideas and policies that mankind has ever conceived.”

“Just take one look at this witch and you know everything you need to know about her, even before she starts talking.”

“Of course this grotesque display is coming from a female “priest.” You will only ever hear heresy and inanity from someone whose whole existence is blasphemous.”

And another tweet from Bo Loudon: “🚨BREAKING: A bishop at the National Cathedrol just urged President Trump to protect transgender children and not deport illegal aliens because "they're not criminals."

Pure class from President Trump as he sat through this despicable politicization of the prayer service.”

Speech text:
““In the Name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” Budde stated. “There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.

”The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens, or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.”

Budde asked Trump “to have mercy” on people “in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing warzones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.

“Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land,” she continued. “May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God.”

Earlier in her message, Budde stressed the importance of unity, of respectfully disagreeing with one another, but also expressed concern over what she called “the culture of contempt” and feared “the loss of equality” for some who lose in political debates.

What a horrible, divisive message this is! 🙄 Personally, I think Budde's message is courageous and beautiful, and clearly deeply Christian at its core.

@TempestTost

In the end it is a document created by a very political think tank. Donald Trump has not attached himself to it, in fact he's said he isn't interested. As far as his close advisors and cabinet - I imagine some may have an interest but by no means all - they aren't actually all that conservative a group.

The first primary aims of Project 2025 have already been realised.
The think tank is all Trump advisors.

I think continuing this thread is like talking to a brick wall - pointless.

Good luck.

Mumsnet literally was the only place for quite a number of years. I've been posting here since 2017.....and at that time you simply could not discuss this issue freely anywhere else; and it was not being covered in the national media. In fact female journalists were being censured by the media outlets that many had previouslly subscribed to, such as the Guardian.

I don't engage with social media myself, apart from this forum, and one other specialist interest forum. What makes you so sure that you are not being manipulated? There seems to be an implication it is only those who perceive matters differently to you?

i suggest it is mainly those who are not naturally political creatures and who rely on twitter or social media for their info - regardless of affiliation or view - who are most susceptible to echo chambers and distortions.

I agree, if you had a dissenting attitude to GI, it was banning and ostracism on virtually all platforms. It was "discussed," but only as a stunning brave circle jerk, with a liberal garnish of "Death to TERFs!"

It's extremely dishonest to claim that GC views were permitted openly.

It will be if you see your aim or purpose here to convert or convince others to your exact persepctive.

I find that now people tend to say the same things when speaking about political issues - repeat the same log lines we see all over Twitter and other social media. That's due to manipulation.

Things like "transwomen are women", for example.

problems there are have been inflated out of all proportion to send populations into moral panic

There is a common misunderstanding, or propoganda, that objections to TRAs is primarily based on people fearing physical or sexual actual harm. However, what people fear is the loss of the definition and understanding of sex as a distinct category and a protected characteristic. There is nothing 'out of proportion' about this fear. This is the focus of the executive order.

The media has been heavily manipulative on the trans issue.

About 10 years ago I couldn't understand why a man pretending to be a woman had won a 'woman of the year' award.

I didn't understand why woman-hating men pretending to be women were given so much airtime to air their hateful views (like Paris Lees calling Germaine Greer a bigot).

I didn't understand why every time a man 'came out' as a man pretending to be a woman, the media fell over itself to fawn over him.

Then there were the 'Trans Kids' programmes which had me going WTF? Transsexual children? Really?

Then I found Mumsnet, and found I wasn't alone.

The media tried to manipulate me, but failed.

That's the ... exact same thing.

I don't understand this response. How is the left being captured by gender ideology responsible for Trump being a criminal and a sexual predator?

Use your words? Join activist groups? I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult about this particular concept, unless you're just being picky.

In case it's escaped your notice, there are lots of women doing just what you suggest. But many ordinary members of the Labour party and other leftist parties who have tried to change the party from within have found themselves ostracised and even thrown out of the party by expressing dissent with the party line on genderism.

What do you think would happen by talking or emailing a politician?

From my own personal experience of doing this I can tell you what happens. If I get a reply at all, what happens is that they attempt to avoid answering my questions about genderism or just repeat nonsense about things like how much they are doing for the LGBTQ+ community. So far, after a few dozen emails, I have not managed to have any sort of meaningful conversation about genderism from any political representative of a party which is captured by genderism.

I wrote to all the candidates in my constituency before the last general election. I got nothing back except an automated reply from some of them. I did get a phone call from Labour looking for my vote. I talked to them about my email and my disappointment at not receiving a reply, and spent a few minutes explaining to them about autogynephilia as they desperately tried to end the call. The Labour candidate wasn't elected, so no chance of a follow up.

The people at the We Need To Talk meeting I went to back in 2018 weren't russian or chinese. We turned up because we were concerned about GRA reform and were encouraged by the Govt to participate in a consultation about it.

Any problems there are have been inflated out of all proportion

For many "problems", it only takes one instance for people to object, and rightly! "Out of proportion" isn't a thing for some matters.

• People have seen photos of male swimmers and athletes taking trophies and medals from women, and they have said "enough" because the acceptable number of women losing to a cheating man is zero.
• People saw rapist male Isla Bryson sent to a women's jail and rapist male Karen White convicted of sexually assaulting women in New Hall prison, and they have said "enough" because the acceptable number of women put at risk of rape by being housed with a male inmate is zero.
• People have seen men on Top 100 Women lists (Philip Bunce) and declared "first woman to do X", and they have said "enough" because the acceptable number of women whose recognition is stolen by men is zero.

You can't blow a problem out of all proportion if it shouldn't even happen once.

Your misogyny, which underpins your belief that people shouldn't object to these things if they "only" happen a few times to a few women, is glaringly obvious.

I actually do agree with you that there is a huge degree of social media manipulation going on in the 2020s - Tumblr had its infamous Russian bots problem, during the Olympics Facebook was crawling with pro-Imane Khelif bot pages all with the exact same phrasing, you sometimes come across insane QAnon type conspiracy posts that look like they were generated with AI.

But biased moderation hasn't helped matters at all. For years almost all social media platforms had a very pro-progressive ethos - it is only very recently that things have begun to shift. They chose moderation teams with similar ideals to theirs, and those moderation teams tended to nuke the right-wing bot posts (and the humans agreeing with them) and allow the left-wing ones to proliferate. It's a downwards spiral from the first moment you apply an uneven hand. Is it really any wonder that Reddit, Tumblr and Bluesky (mostly former Twitter users) are so full of real-life radicals? And that groups like Reform are using this for their own political leverage?

I also want to push back slightly on the idea that people's concerns are being inflated out of all proportion. Even if proportionately few people are negatively affected to the point of losing a job or being raped in a mixed-sex ward or being arrested or being sucker-punched at a peaceful demonstration, those people have still been negatively affected. Additionally, anyone who hears about this realises it could happen to them too and maybe (especially if they're vulnerable) they reconsider speaking up at work or going to the hospital or writing that Twitter post or attending a protest. This is human nature. How many parents wrapped their kids in cotton wool after Madeleine went missing? How many people wore their seatbelts after Diana's car crash? How many people developed a fear of planes or tall buildings after 9/11? One victim or a million and whatever the odds of it happening to you, it can have a powerful effect on curtailing people's behaviour.

Thank you for your response, by the way - I think the role of social media and overseas / domestic lobby-group interference warrants a discussion, even though we may disagree on the exact whys and wherefores.

Where are you getting this from?
Trump hasn't appointed anyone from the Heritage Foundation to his cabinet.
He has appointed a Hindu woman (sans kitchen sink), a gay man, several Jewish people, an unprecidented number of Catholics, inlcuding a Catholic unionist woman which still has my head reeling and lifts my hopes ever so slightly. Infact the biggest change I think is that the once Puritan USA is suddenly become culturally Catholic. Six out of nine supreme court judges, the VP, Secretary of State, Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA, and whatever Bobby Kennedy's son is going to be, remarkable state of affairs.
Trump owes the Evangelical faction(s?) of the Republican party nothing. If you're interested in where he's situated in terms of intra-Republican struggles this is an interesting listen and only half an hour (if it's accessible outside Australia):
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/religionandethicsreport/the-untold-history-of-gay-republicans/104630136

I am finding that element fascinating too, TheCourseoftheRiserChanged.

I don't think most people have come across the kind of Catholic social thought that was so influential in the first half of the 20th century, in particular. It was in a sense conservative, but also communitarian, and localist. It's absolutely suspicious of a big state, but also anti-corpratist and even anti-capitalist.

It was hugely influential in the co-op movement and the credit union movement. People influenced by it or involved include Dorothy Day who founded the Catholic Workers movement, Chesterton, and E.F. Schumacher, the economist who wrote "Small Is Beautiful".

It's wild to see that coming to practical political prominence under Trump, although I suspect Trump himself doesn't really have a clue about it. And it doesn't sit comfortably with the big tech millionaires who have also hitched their wagon to Trump.

But it does represent some really new influences on American politics, at least at that level, and I am extremely curious to see how it's going to play out.

I think that it is always important to restate this when posters make declarations about it all being a ‘moral panic’. The fact that generally not one of those posters is usually prepared to admit their personal numbers for acceptable collateral of female people harmed is telling. They talk about ‘moral panic’ and yet lack the moral courage to quantify the effects of the demand for tolerance.

"The fact that generally not one of those posters is usually prepared to admit their personal numbers for acceptable collateral of female people harmed is telling"

I do not see the difference between this argument and that put forward by the far right when it comes to Asian grooming gangs ('how many kids do think it's acceptable should be raped by a gang, before you accept that we should stop/reduce immigration from that part of the world'?) or the Trumpers in the USA using the murder of a young woman by an illegal immigrant, to make a case for 15 million deportations.

You are correct the number should be zero for all:

Zero men allowed in women's spaces.
Zero girls raped by Pakistani gangs.
Zero illegal immigrants allowed into a country.
Particularly ones with criminal records.

These are rational positions held by normal people not far right .

Only deluded leftists are still calling these far right positions everyone else knows the game is up.

The class of people who commit 98% of sexual violence despite making up 50% of the population is males. All males.

Sexual offenders are overrepresented amongst males 48-fold compared to women. A man is 4800% more likely to sexually assault you than a woman is.

Only if Asian grooming gangs are ever proved to be 4800% more likely to commit sexual assault than white men, would it become acceptable to ban male immigration from Pakistan (the gangs in question are actually composed of a particular subset of Pakistani Muslim male, so it would not be appropriate to ban women nor men from all of Asia). This won't ever be proven because grooming gangs exist amongst all races, including white men. The Rotherham grooming gangs got away with it for so long because the safeguarding professionals were more scared of being called racist than they were of letting girls down. One of the lessons that should have been learned after Rotherham is that no one is above suspicion. No class of men should be deemed untouchable, including the ones who want to be women.

Illegal immigrants by definition shouldn't be here: not because they might rape, but because they've either been trafficked or are criminals (they broke immigration law), and neither of those circumstances is acceptable. If someone is an asylum seeker, they aren't an illegal immigrant by definition.

Conflating sex with race and national origin is racist. Having a lot of melanin in one's skin is not the same as having a penis.

In what way was it political?

Zero illegal immigrants in the USA?
That would mean about 12 million workers suddenly disappearing - largely from the menial positions that she cited. Farms, hotels etc would not have enough staff to operate. Their cheap exploited labour is necessarily factored in as essential for a functioning economy. MAGA don't understand - but employers do. Apart from a minority with criminal records, the deportations are just for show.

Their cheap exploited labour is necessarily factored in as essential for a functioning economy.

Are you saying that it's impossible to have a functioning economy without the exploitation of illegal immigrants? Or have I misunderstood?

Another option is to regularise them. Slap them all with a small token fine for coming illegally, background check them, deport those who have criminal records (whether in their own country or otherwise), and give the rest work permits.

And then mandate that employers check eligibility to work.

Their cheap exploited labour

It's not in any way progressive to support a status quo in which people are invisible to the State, cannot unionise, cannot go to the police if they are victims of a crime, etc because they are here illegally and fear being deported. And it's certainly not progressive to use "but the economy" as an excuse for this.

I thought the Left were supposed to oppose capitalist greed, not facilitate it.

If it is, then you are running your country incorrectly.

Of course it doesn't have to be illegal immigrants, but probably has to be largely migrant workers. The word 'necessarily' there is from the point of view of employers that want to maximise their profits with cheap non-unionised labour.

Pretty sure that everyone on the left would agree that regularising migrant labour would be a good thing. My post was an explanation, not a defence of the status quo.

Quite.
I don't think they can hear themselves.